'Submit' vow could fall foul of the Marriage Act

By Kelly Burke

August 28, 2012 — 3.00am

DOUBT has been cast over the legality of the Sydney Anglican Diocese's changes to the marriage vow after an expert in church law said he did not believe the new wedding service complied with federal laws.

The Herald reported on Saturday that some parishes were already using the new vow, requiring the minister to ask the bride: ''Will you honour and submit to him, as the church submits to Christ?'' and for her to pledge ''to love and submit'' to her husband.

Illustration: Cathy Wilcox

According to the chairman of the diocese's liturgical panel, the Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth, the alternative vows were for ''young Christian women and men who wanted a form of service where the obligations of marriage are more explicit than other contemporary services''.

The story has prompted criticism of the conservative diocese, which opposes the full ordination of women and supports an exclusively male leadership doctrine.

Advertisement

But Archdeacon John Davis, from the Wangaratta Diocese, in Victoria, who is an expert on the Anglican Church constitution, said the changes not only carried ''unpleasant connotations'', but could also be illegal.

Under the Marriage Act a religious ceremony must use a service authorised by the religion's governing body, which in this case would be the Anglican Church of Australia as the act is a Commonwealth one, Dr Davis said.

''The legal relationship is between the Commonwealth and the Anglican Church of Australia, and not between the Commonwealth and each of the 24 dioceses in the country,'' he said.

The Anglican Church of Australia has not authorised the change to the wedding vows.

The Herald was unable to obtain clarification from the federal Attorney-General's office.

Dr Davis said even if the Attorney-General accepted the Sydney Diocese was the governing body, marriages conducted using the new vows may not be valid because the service had yet to be ratified by Sydney's Synod.

However, Dr Davis said it was debatable whether replacing ''obey'' with ''submit'' was within the church's existing doctrine.

He said the word ''submit'' had never been been used as part of the marriage vow in the Book of Common Prayer, which has been regularly updated since 1662.

''In all my 35 years as a priest, I have only ever had one bride who even wanted to use the word obey, and she was 60 years old,'' he said.

The Sydney couple Stephanie and Andrew Judd, who spoke to the Herald last week about why they chose the ''submit'' vow for their wedding in January, are not fazed by suggestions that their union may not be valid in the eyes of the law.

''Adam and Eve didn't have a state to get married under and God thought they were married, so I think we're OK in God's eyes,'' Mr Judd said.